Could Clemens have been framed?

Sunday, December 30, 2007
Jerry Green

My rooted image of Roger Clemens was that he was a self-serving blowhard with a preening gait and a frightening fastball who never minded sticking the ball into some batter's ribs. He pitched with excellence, and he knew it.

That notion has not changed.

But America's perception of Clemens, the most successful pitcher of the past quarter-century, has changed from the excellent to the terrible.

He has become the poster person of Major League Baseball's accusatory Mitchell Report. The fingering of Clemens as a user of steroids and human growth hormones was the most shocking revelation of the condemning document.

What bothers me is Roger might have been framed!

We truly don't know.

George Mitchell, the former senator from Maine, has attested he conducted a thorough investigation before writing the 409-page report. He has said the testimony of his witnesses was truthful and believable.

The testimony is likely going to prevent Clemens from going to the Baseball Hall of Fame and send him instead into baseball's purgatory.

What bothers me is Mitchell might have been dreadfully gullible.

He based his condemnation of Clemens on evidence supplied by one stool pigeon who himself was faced with a jail term. So the voice sang essentially to save his butt.

The stoolie's name is Brian McNamee. He once served as a trainer to the Yankees and also to Clemens as a personal trainer.

Mitchell's report stated McNamee injected Clemens with the steroids and HGH starting in 1998 through 2001, according to the Associated Press. Clemens pitched for the Blue Jays and Yankees during those years.

So Major League Baseball's mess is about to become murkier.

Some media marvels across the country have judged Clemens guilty, based solely on the Mitchell Report.

In a reversal of our American ethos, Clemens is now forced to try to prove himself innocent.

And he is doing it in typical American fashion: He has retained a dynamo attorney to counterattack.

Clemens himself has ignored overtures to defend himself in the media while at the same time proclaiming innocence via a video released on his foundation's Web site and on YouTube. That is the modern American way.

And he has a scheduled appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes" next Sunday. After that he might condescend to speak to some ink-stained wretches.

"Let me be clear: The answer is no, I did not use steroids or human growth hormone, and I've never done so," Clemens said in video released last Sunday. "I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormones into my body either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays for the New York Yankees. The report is simply not true."

Those quotes, borrowed from an AP report, seem to me to be powerful. The remarks were not evasive.

What bothers me is the Mitchell Report could well be flawed by skimming over basic theories of investigation.

There is an ancient rule in journalism that states when obtaining damning evidence the investigator should at least multiple-source the material. Two, three or four sources should be required.

It is a rule, according to all available material, Mitchell's investigators ignored.

And as I said, it is an ancient rule -- so ancient -- that too many of today's ink-stained wretches never learned it. Rather, they eagerly rush to print on the say-so, often hearsay, of one individual with a spiteful agenda.

What bothers me is McNamee seems to lack credibility despite statements from Mitchell and federal law enforcement agents supporting the stool pigeon.

They maintain McNamee could be charged with drug dealing and lying to investigators if he failed to be truthful, according to the New York Times.

And Mitchell publicly believes that because of this McNamee would not lie to save himself. In a statement to CNN regarding the report, Mitchell said: "(witnesses) have overwhelming incentives to tell the truth. if they didn't tell the truth, they themselves are subject to criminal prosecution."

So sometime in 2008 we will be treated to an investigation of an investigation, perhaps a report on the Mitchell Report.

That appears to be the plan of Clemens' attorney, one Rusty Hardin, of Houston.

In a statement during the past week, Hardin said: "To our surprise, we have identified several people who logic dictates the Mitchell team should have talked to but did not. That's troubling. We are asking questions, and we encourage the news media to do the same."

What bothers me is Hardin has been described out of Houston as a showman-celebrity attorney, slick and sharp, prone to turning a case involving justice into a circus.

What bothers me also is Roger Clemens, if ultimately exonerated, would never get the smear off of him.

And what bothers me most of all is I believe Roger Clemens and his pleas of innocence -- and I wind up more gullible than George Mitchell.

News source：http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/OPINION03/712300329/1129/SPORTS0104